I have to deal with People-as-a-Problem for a living.
On the whole, this isn't a bad litmus test, but it's obvious he associates with an older crowd. In recent years, some of these have started to be subverted.
> 3. Discover what experiences formed their character in early life
Glad his experience went well, but this is fishing for emotional intelligence. No stranger needs to be asking these sorts of questions-- you end up letting slip things like parent issues, lack of friends, low self-esteem, etc. and they end up exploiting that later. It's Grooming, and how you end up working for an abusive boss.
> 5. Identify what irritates people the most in others—because this is probably the trait they dislike most in themselves.
No. This is 1960s psychobabble (projection). You don't have to be a liar to hate liars, nor do you need to be a closet homosexual to be homophobic. Nobody would suggest that a guy who commits hate crimes against Chinese secretly wishes he were Asian.
Some people just have trust issues/take Integrity seriously, and other people just don't have tolerance for anything that challenges their world view. Be careful what you read into.
I think 5) has some merit, but wasn't worded as carefully as it could have been. I find many of the things I dislike most in others are the "failings" that I have a natural proclivity for, but have worked hard to overcome. I'm not sure how well it works as a test of character though, because it's hard to tell where the person is on their "overcoming" journey.
Though as you say, there are many exceptions. I have a strong tendency towards honesty and a strong aversion to dishonesty, for example.
Trying to untangle it all very likely too complex a problem for this to be used as a meaningful heuristic, but it probably shouldn't be completely ignored, either.
Yeah overall it is a good article, but #5 is nonsense that is spouted too often. It may be true that people often project the things they hate about themselves to others, but you can’t know whether or not that is the case when getting to know someone.
If you’re their therapist and you know that they are homophobic and also homosexual, you can get to the root of things. But otherwise, if you see that someone is homophobic, they may just be homophobic.
I would politely disagree, I think there's a fine road between both of what you are saying here. Oftentimes people do project outward their hate because they hate it in themselves -- we are creatures with much logical momentum unfortunately, and many conflicts can arise when people try to paper over their own biases and *isms. It's not psychobabble, it's a phenomenon that has been very well demonstrated and is commonly accepted today as a part of an evidence-based practice for trauma resolution. Some of the examples you brought up were fallacious, though I unfortunately don't have any good resources to point you to.
As far as the first point, I could see it going either way. I know where many people came from in their early years, and it is actually the fuel that helps me give them respect when they act in inappropriate manners considering the situation at hand -- I can recontextualize and see where they are coming from. It gives me empathy, an ability to connect to them, and an ability to fundamentally feel safe enough to better love them.
> It's not psychobabble, it's a phenomenon that has been very well demonstrated and is commonly accepted today as a part of an evidence-based practice for trauma resolution.
I came across more dismissive than intended. You are right.
The author mentions it in the context of interviewing, not therapy. If a psychologist wants to draw that conclusion based on intimate knowledge shared with them, so be it, but the layman does not have that context-- so rules-of-thumb like "it takes one to know one" leads to dangerously-misguided conclusions.
Bob doesn't like pedophiles, ergo Bob is a pedophile? It's wrong more often than right and should not be used as a metric of anything [by laymen].
> As far as the first point, I could see it going either way. I know where many people came from in their early years, and it is actually the fuel that helps me give them respect when they act in inappropriate manners considering the situation at hand -- I can recontextualize and see where they are coming from. It gives me empathy, an ability to connect to them, and an ability to fundamentally feel safe enough to better love them.
Absolutely! Talk to your friends, family, or therapist, but you'd be wise not to reveal too much of yourself to someone whose position betrays their own power-seeking behavior.
Yeah, #3 in particular - man, I wonder how many people the author struck out because they had a rough childhood or grew up in a bad area. People can change, they often do change, and judging them by how they dealt with the part of their life they had no real control over, as opposed to what they’ve done since, doesn’t strike me as any real kind of wisdom.
I think the author's point is exactly the opposite - he's more impressed by people who experienced adversity in their early years and (presumably) have overcome it to the point where they're interviewing with him.
There's no way to determine that in an interview, which was the author's example. Interviewers who ask these type of questions are low key manipulative, that prying attitude is incredibly off putting, so presumptuous. If I were getting the sense that I were being judged on my childhood, I'd no way want to work with you. It's a total boomer thing, that casual condescendion. Younger people are much much better attuned to people's boundaries. Honestly, it's kind of frightening, the maturity with which a lot young people already can communicate with.
Humbly, I don’t think it’s projection. For example, one who publicly hates liars probably dislikes any instance they have been dishonest or where oblique about the truth.
Someone who is homophobic, would hate any instance where they evaluated a man as attentive even if that’s in a purely objective way so they would claim to be above mens fashion and grooming.
I can’t speak about racists since I don’t know what motivates them. However someone who hates racism, would be troubled when they find they like protecting their in group more than others. It’s not that they are racists, but they can recognize that can be the seed of such if you aren’t thoughtful.
People naturally have facets of themselves they want to expunge but can’t because like all people they aren’t perfectly rationale. They simply are what they are.
His observation that people are infuriated when they see their own flaw in others is often true. But the converse is not : if a flaw is noticed, the observer must have that flaw.
E.g. ive noticed that I was disgusted by people wasting time at work... over time i've realized this was a judgement on myself that I was externalizing.
On the whole, this isn't a bad litmus test, but it's obvious he associates with an older crowd. In recent years, some of these have started to be subverted.
> 3. Discover what experiences formed their character in early life
Glad his experience went well, but this is fishing for emotional intelligence. No stranger needs to be asking these sorts of questions-- you end up letting slip things like parent issues, lack of friends, low self-esteem, etc. and they end up exploiting that later. It's Grooming, and how you end up working for an abusive boss.
> 5. Identify what irritates people the most in others—because this is probably the trait they dislike most in themselves.
No. This is 1960s psychobabble (projection). You don't have to be a liar to hate liars, nor do you need to be a closet homosexual to be homophobic. Nobody would suggest that a guy who commits hate crimes against Chinese secretly wishes he were Asian.
Some people just have trust issues/take Integrity seriously, and other people just don't have tolerance for anything that challenges their world view. Be careful what you read into.